Does reducing the size of your ecological footprint necessarily mean reducing your quality of life? Why or why not? Are there ways of enhancing your quality of life while lowering your environmental

impact?

Small footprints do not necessarily imply a low quality of life. In the south of India the
State of Kerala with 30 million inhabitants is a particularly inspiring example. [ [ In spite of
modest footprints of 2 acres per person, the people of Kerala enjoy demographic stability,
low child mortality, longevity, and high literacy rates, all comparable to the much richer
industrialized countries.

Also, they can pride themselves on a lively democracy and the
active participation of women. ] ]

Weegy: a. Earth’s climate?
The Earth’s atmosphere would be tremendously ruined due to the fossil gas that is burned for our usage and the fertilizer used at many farms to produce the plants we eat.
b. [ The health of ecosystems and biodiversity? Animals will continue to go extinct at a fast pace. The pollution in the air and in the water will produce diseases that will continue to attack the human race and there will be a food shortage.
c. Humanity’s natural resource base and thus economic security? There will be shortages in water, gas, energy, and etc. If there is a shortage in natural resources with the need of natural resources so high, the prices will go up and only a small amount of people will have them. More people will be living in poverty or homeless.
] (More)

Weegy: American agriculture is steeped in a chemical-intensive system that wastes money and pollutes the environment. [ [ But by making use of new technology and innovative approaches, farmers can boost production and profits ? while at the same time improving soil quality, enhancing biodiversity, and protecting habitat.In California, farmers can go online and access detailed data on evapotranspiration from a state network of weather stations, helping them calculate the optimal amount of water to apply on a given day to irrigated crops in their region. In a pilot study, growers using the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) reduced their water use by 13 percent while increasing their yields by 8 percent. Still, despite these benefits, farmers use CIMIS data on only 5 percent of irrigated cropland in California, the U.S. s leading agricultural state.
] ] (More)

Weegy: There is some evidence that climate change is already having a measurable affect on the quality and quantity of food produced globally. [ But this is small when compared with the significant increase in global food production that has been achieved over the past few decades. Isolating the influence of climatic change from all the other trends is difficult, but one recent Stanford University study found that increases in global production of maize and wheat since 1980 would have been about 5% higher were it not for climate change.
All else being equal, rising carbon dioxide concentrations – the main driver of climate change – could increase production of some crops, such as rice, soybean and wheat. However, the changing climate would affect the length and quality of the growing season and farmers could experience increasing damage to their crops, caused by a rising intensity of droughts, flooding or fires.
The latest IPCC report predicted improving conditions for food production in the mid to high latitudes over the next few decades, including in the northern USA, Canada, northern Europe and Russia. Conversely, parts of the subtropics, such as the Mediterranean region and parts of Australia, and the low latitudes, could experience declining conditions. For example, across Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Beyond this, if global temperatures rise by more than about 1–3°C, declining conditions could be experienced over a much larger area. ] (More)

Weegy: anthropogenic climate change will affect global food production, with uncertain consequences for human health in developed countries.
Increasing food prices may lower the nutritional quality of dietary intakes, exacerbate obesity, [ and amplify health inequalities. Altered conditions for food production may result in emerging pathogens, new crop and livestock species, and altered use of pesticides and veterinary medicines, and affect the main transfer mechanisms through which contaminants move from the environment into food. All these have implications for food safety and the nutritional content of food. Climate change mitigation may increase consumption of foods whose production reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts may include reduced red meat consumption (with positive effects on saturated fat, but negative impacts on zinc and iron intake) and reduced winter fruit and vegetable consumption. Developed countries have complex structures in place that may be used to adapt to the food safety consequences of climate change, although their effectiveness will vary between countries, and the ability to respond to nutritional challenges is less certain. ] (More)